[jdev] last presence confusion

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Jan 25 13:09:30 CST 2008


Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:23:38PM -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 20 December 2007 2:52 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>> So a nice server will return the last unavailable presence information
>>>>> (with a Delayed Delivery flag), thus obviating the need for a flood of
>>>>> jabber:iq:last requests.
>>>> How about emphasizing the first option as a SHOULD?  This would 
>>>> hopefully encourage new servers to always reply, while not causing 
>>>> existing servers to become non-compliant.
>>> On the other hand, usually just 1/3 of my roster is online. So if server
>>> starts sending presence for all contacts, initial "presence flood" from
>>> the server increases 3 times.
>> So do I take that as an objection to the modified text in rfc3921bis?
> Not an objection. But I am a bit worried by this change when I look at 
> my roster. However, at the same time I know that my roster is most 
> probably not a very typical one. Do we have any stats? What's the 
> percent of offline contacts? And what's typical roster size? Maybe it 
> doesn't matter that presence list increases 3 times if this means 
> increasing from 3 to 9 presence stanzas?

I have 1770 people in my roster, so yes I'm concerned. :)

I'll look up some stats on the jabber.org service to see what the 
average roster size is.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/attachments/20080125/84bf9a55/attachment-0002.bin>


More information about the JDev mailing list